Why shouldn’t journalists be able to express opinions?

There have been plenty of other cases that make this point as well: Last year, for example, CNN (s twx) Senior Editor and Middle East expert Octavia Nasr was fired after more than two decades at the news channel because she posted a sympathetic comment about the death of an alleged terrorist leader to her Twitter account. As I wrote at the time, these kinds of events force media outlets to confront the myth that journalists are objective — and that reporters can’t have or express opinions about the topics they cover. If anything, I think news consumers would be better off if they expressed themselves more rather than less, so that everyone would know where they stand.

We’re kidding ourselves and kidding our readers when we pretend that journalists have no opinions and no biases. My view is that journalists can’t be objective, because as human beings we are all subjective. What we can do is employ an objective method in the reporting and writing of the news: To be fair, to be accurate, to be comprehensive. If a reporter pledges to do that, I have no problem with them having opinions.

Readers can make their own judgments about bias

Shafer said that he was sure his new employer, like most established media entities, likely restricts the ability of its journalists to belong to political parties or express political opinions, but that he thinks this is wrong. But won’t readers be misled by the biases of the journalists they listen to or read? Shafer doesn’t think so:

I have great faith in the average person because I am one. I’m of normal height, normal IQ, I went to a school that once called itself Western Normal College. So, yes, I think average readers can calibrate for bias.

Seems to me that you may have overlooked one major portion of journalism with your blog post: business and financial journalism. The benefits or drawbacks to reporting on such topics while being anything but *completely* unbiased should be pretty clear. The word transparency is getting thrown around like it and unbiased mean the same thing. They don’t.
You may have been a 15 year journalist with a degree, but you need to go back to school. Despite your experience, you have absolutely failed to realize the responsiblity you have provide nothing but the facts, and let the readers decide. Fair, unbiased news containing only the facts is dying a rather slow death at the hands of “infotainment.” I find your statements that we should essentially welcome it very sad.

I think the idea here is that “journalits” should be objective in professional pieces, but be allowed to have an opinion in social media when NOT representing the media outlet they work for. __I don’t see a major problem with this. Let them have twitter/facebook/Google+, as long as their profile makes it clear this is their opinion and not the opinion of the company they work for, then let them opine away. After that, the reader can objectivly decide if the reporter/writer is biased in their professional writings.

It is clearly the “pretense of objectivity” that destroys credibility and trust in journalism. Jack Shafer is right that readers can see right through that. And David Weinberger is right that transparency is part of the answer. That why we started the “TAO of Journalism – Transparent, Accountable and Open” Pledge and Seal project. See http://taoofjournalism.org. It’s a voluntary honor system that anyone practicing “acts of journalism” can follow. Be Transparent about your biases, Accountable if you make mistakes, and Open to other points of view. Simple as that. Just TAO it!

While Mathew has laid out a nice argument here, I have to disagree. Objectivity in journalism is not a pretense, it’s an ideal. One we as journalists must strive to attain. Sure, many of us fall short, but what you propose is to admit defeat. If you had it your way, I would never trust anything I read ever again and become ever more polarized. The rules help us to be fair.

Amen, Eric. I know a bit about journalism myself. And I am appalled at journalists who as reporters apid to write a newstory persist in attempting to demonstrate their desire to be sociologists. Just give me the 5 Ws. Don’t try to convince me of the rightness of some identity politics view of the world or how sensitive you are. I am interested in news. Just the facts. Spare me the effort to convince me of the rightness of your worldview. As a reader I am frequently offended at what passes for journalism these days. Purported news columns morph into bad sociology masquerading as public policy advice. Now, more than ever, real journalists need to know how to do old school, straight forward newswriting. That’s what I’m interested in consuming. I can find all the opinion and sociology I want, if I want it, on the web. What I don’t need are “pretenders” giving me their pathetic writing pretending to be news. Objectivity is a goal. It is capable of being striven for and achieved. It has value. The attempt to suggest that objectivity is a myth is,a s Col. Sherman T. Potter of MASH fame would say, “horsehockey”. Journalists might like to rationalize flaunting themselves and their opinions. Spare me the self-flattery. I don’t give a damn about the opinions of a bunch of left wing writers who wish to play at being sociologists and force feed me their opinions dressed up as “news”. I also find it amusing that they expect to be able to do this sucking on the government tit. Organizations have the right to define themselves and their standards. If Matthew or Jack don’t like that, bully for them! Let them start their own orgaization and make their own rules. They might need to raise a little money and put their own asses on the line of economic risk, as well. Woo-hoo! Product differentiation and how to achieve it is the prerogative of the owner of the publication–be it print, web, broadcast or whatever. It ain’t the prerogative of the hired help. So, if Matthew and Jack want to tell those of us consumers of journalism what we must suffer in terms of journalistic ethics, they can kiss my ass or start their own organization and put their own asses at risk economically. In the meantime, if I want an orgaization to provide me news and do it while striving for objectivity in it’s news columns or product they are free to strive to do that. And I’m still interested in purchasing it. And I can ignore publications or products that try to induce me to buy into fascile bullshit like “transparency is the new objectivity.” What bunk!

Objectivity in reporting is compromised if you express your opinion as a journalist. Logic must prevail, otherwise the news will become tainted with too much emotional views and political bias!!!

The tradition of media objectivity must continue, as WWII had worse atrocities and journalists on the job, including freelancers caught up in the moment, reported, unflinching, knowing that the audience depended on them to keep a level head – and for you the viewer to react, if you so desire.

Media has bigger problems to worry about. such as the rise of IPTV and Web TV streaming…..

They’d never resist using such openness to purge themselves of the despised 5% of conservatives among them. Liberal Juan Williams had the gall to give a marginally right wing opinion once and NPR couldn’t fire him fast enough.

Everyone wants fair and honest journalism. But now that Michele Norris is not hosting “All Things Considered” for the duration of the 2012 election season, it’s clear to me that NPR’s ethics policy is increasingly untenable, and ultimately, indefensible. What happens after the election season? Norris goes back to her host position, and is somehow suddenly untainted and magically unbiased? NPR seems to believe it is effectively fighting a battle of appearances and is shielding itself from critics, but it’s a fight that can’t be won, and certainly not like this.

To be clear, I can see why Norris might, especially personally, have an awkward and tricky time reporting on the election horserace day after day on the radio, a medium that doesn’t lend itself well to constant disclosures if she felt she needed to make them. But she has stated she’s only stepping down temporarily. The message â€” her loyalties matter now, but will cease to matter once the nation has elected someone â€” is problematic to me.

Blogs attached to some major media outlets have allowed for some of this already. A closer look might indicate that this appears to be more of a trend, but, personally, I still favor placing a disclaimer on each piece, noting that it is dotted or washed in opinion. The reader has the right to know.

I’ve realized recently that this gets at the heart of what is holding us back from a true move toward “community engagement,” involving the audience in our journalism at every step of the process, and in having a real conversation with readers instead of a one-way relationship. Our reporters and editors agree that those things need to happen, and see the value, but when it gets to the conversation, they are speechless. They’re speechless because they have been trained so well to put on the robot act. There’s nothing they feel they CAN talk about. They literally don’t know how to behave like a normal human being would for fear that it punctures the myth of the dispassionate and objective journalist. So if you survey the “engagement” efforts of newspapers and other media outlets across the country (including my own), you’ll often see questions, “What do you think about this story or topic?” and that’s where the conversation ends, with readers’ responses.

I totally agree, Matt — which is why I put in the stuff about social media policies. Newspapers don’t feel that they can allow their reporters and editors to be human with readers because they have trained them not to be. It’s a serious problem.

Most people feel that mainstream media outlets push liberal viewpoints, so most cable viewers watch Fox News to get the full story. Most people aren’t fooled by the pretense of objectivity. So, firing a journalist because you think they might have drawn back the curtain you’re hiding behind is a futile exercise.

That’s it? You just reply to a blatantly false comment (most cable viewers watch Fox News to get the full story???) with “well said.” Thank you for exposing YOUR bias, Mr. Tea Party. Is your radical conservatism shared by GigaOm’s editorial staff as well? If so, I will need to let my thousands of Facebook and LinkedIn contacts know about this and they can decide whether or not to unsubscribe – as I am about to – from a radical right wing rag posing as an objective tech blog.

I don’t think most cable viewers watch FOX news. FOX News might have the highest share of those cable viewers who watch news but to say that the huge demographic of cable viewers mostly watch FOX is a gross exaggeration and quite clearly points to where YOUR biases lie. Nice try though.

Jimr: perhaps one reason you didn’t know the influence I have is because this is the first time I have posted here, using a guest pseudonym I have never used before. Odd that while posting on a web message board you wouldn’t think that one minor individual such as myself DOES have a modicum of influence (as you do too) due to the rise of various social media platforms and tools. It ain’t much influence but it’s something. Surely a reader of GigaOm would know that, right? Right?

Matthew: yeah, I guess I don’t really think GigaOM is a radical right wing masquerade but the poster’s comment truly deserved to be challenged but you soft balled it.

Expressing opinions and reporting the news objectively are two separate things. It is the reason newspapers have editorial pages. Although, it is very obvious when a reporter’s opinion is affecting and skewing the truth of the story.

But readers can’t identify bias. Television news regularly pits a person with a point against a numb-scull who can’t make a point, thereby convincing the watcher that the position of the person who is not a numb-skull is right – when in actuality all that was proven was that the one person was a numb-skull. That and the questions are leading and one of the ‘guests’ is badgered to look like an idiot.

This is a big problem with the United States. News has become info-tainment and is having a severe polarizing affect on the public to the point when different sides are spewing hatred instead of logic.

While human, journalists have a responsibility to try like hell to report objectively. Large swaths of the public, American at least, are moved by their news sources and to give them an opinionated slant under the guise of being neutral is a disservice to the world and will, and actually is, sending us to a dark place as a society.

I don’t think anyone is advocating slanting or distorting news stories, Brian — in fact, you’ll notice that Jack Shafer specifically mentions being fair when reporting. We’re talking about allowing journalists to express opinions and take part in society outside of their journalism.